Sunday, March 02, 2014

The texts lit up Matt Silverman’s phone before 7 am Wednesday, when Mike Barnicle and Willie Geist asked a guest for a ground hog World Series prediction and the first two words of the answer were “Tampa Bay.” The Rays president knows that February promises won’t get a ballpark built or even a profit turned, but that “it’s good for people to be reminded what this team has done in this division, in this market and with our payroll.”

“People need to be reminded,” says the face of the franchise, Evan Longoria. In Longoria’s six seasons with the Rays, his team is the only team in the American League East to have won at least 90 games five times in six years, and in every one of those years did so with the lowest payroll in the division that considers itself baseball’s S.E.C.

...The people of Tampa shouldn’t need to be reminded of what winning 90 games five of the last six years means, which the Yankees and Red Sox haven’t done. They’ve done so despite a system that punished small market teams that are run well and reward big market teams that are inefficient businesses in terms of the draft. They’ve done it even if there are many who think the Rays and Tigers should flip divisions.

On the first day of March, almost every baseball person one talks to mentions the Rays as the team to beat in the American League if Price stays. One of these years the World Series is coming back to The Trop on The Island, Longoria is going to be the MVP, and the people from Sarasota to Fort Lonesome, Orlando to Indians Rock Beach are going to realize what they have, and what they’ll miss if nothing gets done and they move to Montreal.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Funny bit of trivia probably only I care about: Five minutes ago I was reading Scott Adams saying (correctly, I think) that "passion produces success" is bullshit; success produces passion, and everyone has the cause and effect mixed up.

I'd actually consider it a bad sign for a team if someone who is apparently not worth naming says on a morning cable TV chat show that they'll win the World Series, and people think that's a development worth texting the team president about.

I know a lot of people who superficially will claim to have gotten into whatever career they're in because they were passionate about it, but in truth are just there because when it was time to pick a degree that's where they thought the steady paychecks would be. Currently the most popular such category is nursing.

Everyone is passionate about something, even if (as for many people) it's merely watching TV or playing video games. Following that passion is a great idea if your idea of the good life involves working retail until you get shipped into Useless Old People's Prison a retirement home.

Personally, I think the Rays don't have great chemistry. More than once they've mailed it in when things started to fall apart. Then there's Price's ######## about Papi...the general persecution complex they carry.

How do we know that bringing the same bunch of players back will improve the Rays' team chemistry? Maybe everyone was on their best behavior a lot of the time because they were constantly working with new people to whom they were making an extra effort to be friendly. Maybe irritation with those same people will break out if they have to live with them a second year. Maybe familiarity will breed contempt.

I'm not saying that these things are true but I don't see how Gammons is instantly certain that the opposite will be the case.

I know a lot of people who superficially will claim to have gotten into whatever career they're in because they were passionate about it, but in truth are just there because when it was time to pick a degree that's where they thought the steady paychecks would be. Currently the most popular such category is nursing.

The best advice my old man ever gave me was that the best feeling in the world was actually getting up in the morning and wanting to go to work. At the time I was stuck in a dead end job and it help motivate me to get off my ass and go back to grad school. Maybe I'm in the minority, but i have to pinch myself sometimes that it is true that someone pays me (badly) to teach, research and write about the field I love (history).

Personally, I think the Rays don't have great chemistry. More than once they've mailed it in when things started to fall apart. Then there's Price's ######## about Papi...the general persecution complex they carry.

"He knows how I've pitched him for the last probably year-and-a-half, two years," Price said. "So he steps in the bucket and hits a homer. And he stares at it to see if it's fair or foul, I'm sure that's what he would say, but as soon as he hit it and I saw it I knew it was fair. Run."

Clearly a hate-filled message deserving of karma, especially coming right after the game from a guy who gave up a home run to extend the other team's lead in a postseason game. And I don't even like Price all that much.

Chemistry matters in my opinion. I don't think it matters nearly as much as some of the media believe but it helps. It's not going to make a 60 win team a 90 win team or anything but I think it can make an 85 win team a 90 win team.

Chemistry matters in my opinion. I don't think it matters nearly as much as some of the media believe but it helps. It's not going to make a 60 win team a 90 win team or anything but I think it can make an 85 win team a 90 win team.

I think chemistry matters, but I tend to think of it in reverse. I don't define good chemistry as everybody getting along, but any environment that is most conducive to getting the most individuals to playing at or near their best. And bad chemistry is any environment that leads to more players playing below their potential.

In other words, if the majority of individuals who comprised the 70s A's and Yankees thrived in those raucous environments, then those clubhouses actually had good chemistry. Likewise, if there's a team where everyone gets along fine, but it leads to complancency or a lack of accountability and the results stink, that would be bad chemistry.

The problem, of course, is that a) it's damn near impossible to predict how the individuals will react to a given environment, b) the same individuals may react differently to a given environment from one year to the next c) chances are good that what is a good environment for X numbers of guys is not so good for Y number of players, and d) it's really hard to isolate how the chemistry you had really affected the performance.

Thus, it's real, but unless you have a specific clubhouse problem that you believe needs addressing and can be done by adding and/or subtracting a couple of guys, it's not something that a club can be expected to have a strong handle on.

Funny bit of trivia probably only I care about: Five minutes ago I was reading Scott Adams saying (correctly, I think) that "passion produces success" is ########; success produces passion, and everyone has the cause and effect mixed up.

I disagree. Certainly the majority of people I've met that I consider to be masters of their craft are ... well, I use the word obsessed not passion but much the same phenomenon. It's not just that they work their asses off -- they do -- but that they also can't really contemplate doing anything else with their time. To an often unhealthy degree, especially as regards marriages.

Whether they actually enjoy this obsession or if it's more like an addiction is not always clear.

There's not a one-to-one relationship obviously. There are a lot of obsessed/passionate people that aren't successful and some successful people that aren't obsessed (e.g. maybe Jeff Kent). But it's rare to become a top player in your field without dedication and it's difficult to sustain dedication without commitment. Although, sure, a big salary helps with the commitment.

On the other hand, I can't think of many cases at all in my life where success has spurred passion. Sure, I've met lots of folks who went into a job thinking it was a poor fit for them and found they liked it (usually people finding out they actually are pretty good administrators of one form or another). But they never seemed to reach the level of passion and, in fact, it seems they still harbored the wish that they could have been successful at what they really wanted to be successful at.

I would love to know what this feels like. I hate my job, and want to get out of IT all together. The problem is, I really don't know what I would rather do instead.

Is this a job that's 40 hours per week or 60? If the former, find your passion elsewhere. My personal happiness went up a good bit when I started viewing my jobs as the means to have the money to do stuff I care about when I'm not working. I've been lucky and, no, I couldn't stay at a job (i.e. employer) that didn't engage me.

My personal happiness went up a good bit when I started viewing my jobs as the means to have the money to do stuff I care about

Well yeah. I know people really like their "careers" and such, but I work solely for the cash. I've been self employed for 21 years, have great staff and actually enjoy most of our customers and the work involved. However if $20 mil fell out of the sky I'd quit tomorrow. Work gets in the way of all the fun things I like to do but don't have enough time for them all.

Clearly a hate-filled message deserving of karma, especially coming right after the game from a guy who gave up a home run to extend the other team's lead in a postseason game. And I don't even like Price all that much.

Pshhh...no the karma is for playing "Sweet Caroline" in TB after Rays victories over the Red Sox. The karma is for their faux outrage and the stupid Coco Crisp stuff. Price's juvenile comment, something you'd hear from a high school sophomore, isn't worth karma's attention.

But seriously, I have nothing but respect for Jim...and I WAS one of the Rays greatest supporters in 2008 when everyone would say how they weren't for real and throw a bunch of non-SABR vitriol their way. Or call them one-trick ponies. But the various incidents over the years make them a much more worthy rival than the Yanks. Hell, I can hardly even muster up any anger against the Yankees. They've become TNG-era Klingons.

Is this a job that's 40 hours per week or 60? If the former, find your passion elsewhere. My personal happiness went up a good bit when I started viewing my jobs as the means to have the money to do stuff I care about when I'm not working.

40 hours.

And finding my passion is the issue. The things I'm passionate about won't pay the bills because 1) I'm not good enough at it to get paid to do it, or 2) there's no pay for it at all.

I know people really like their "careers" and such, but I work solely for the cash.

This is exactly it for me. Yes, I hate my job. But, it allows me the money to do things I like to do when I'm not working. If I could find something I liked doing that allowed me to afford even just a little bit of what I have away from work now, I'd quit tomorrow.

Hard to argue with it. How many divisions have had 3 teams with better than .500 record since 2005?

I think the NL East overrates themselves to an extent, but it's hard to argue against them being the strongest division in baseball over the past decade. In a given year you might find a stronger division, but over multiple seasons, there is only one answer to that question over the past decade.

This is exactly it for me. Yes, I hate my job. But, it allows me the money to do things I like to do when I'm not working. If I could find something I liked doing that allowed me to afford even just a little bit of what I have away from work now, I'd quit tomorrow.

I couldn't do that. I like working. I don't "love" it, but I like a job where I'm happy to be at work and have a sense of accomplishment there. The money matters, and I have worked a job I hated, but I quickly dumped that at the first opportunity. (heck, I'm currently working a part time job that I absolutely don't need in the slightest, but enjoy getting out of the house to do the work roughly 15 hours a week)

Don't get me wrong; I like working too. I'd get bored if I didn't. When I said I'd quit tomorrow, I meant that I'd quit my job if I found another one that I actually liked, and it paid enough to allow me to do even just a fraction of what I do in my spare time now.

I'm talking about each and every season the AL EAST has had at least 3 teams with better than a .500 record. (I probably should have worded it better)

OK, but the AL West was still posting the best overall record for years long after the AL East is The Beast conventional wisdom took hold. The AL East as juggernaut really began in 2008 when Tampa emerged. Before that, the AL East was the Yankees and Red Sox and three teams fighting for scraps, while the AL West was what the AL East was alleged to be. Having only three teams meant it was harder to have three above .500 teams every year, but until the M's went in the shitter, the AL West had the best overall record in baseball for something like 9 out of 10 years.

And yes, you should have worded it better (or just left out the snark in the first graph of 26).

The things I'm passionate about won't pay the bills because 1) I'm not good enough at it to get paid to do it, or 2) there's no pay for it at all.

AO, can you do both? I also have a 40-hr/week IT job, but my passion is coaching kids baseball. I don't have the credentials to go coach a JV HS team, and would take a big pay cut to do it. So I volunteer at the local little league and coach about 50 games a year.

AO, can you do both? I also have a 40-hr/week IT job, but my passion is coaching kids baseball. I don't have the credentials to go coach a JV HS team, and would take a big pay cut to do it. So I volunteer at the local little league and coach about 50 games a year.

I do this as well and it is unbelievably fun. I coach 10-12 year olds and the kids at that age are terrific, young enough to not be little punks but old enough that you can teach them some finer points of the game.

A Coke for 30 & 31. I too am a little league coach, but 5 pitch 6-8 yr olds. Great fun. Except for the few hyper competitive coaches who think a 15 pitch / 3K inning is at all productive at that age. And play their two best kids at 1B and pitcher every inning.

Only once, in 2008 when they won a dramatic seven game ALCS against Boston then got rained, cold and beaten by the Phillies in the World Series, have they made it past the division series, which may have lessened their dramatic appeal in a small market trying to support three major league sports franchises."

For the love of God, get Peter Gammons an editor.

That is one crazy sentence-"then got rained" Rained on? Rained out? ":"lessened their dramatic appeal in a small market" As a small market? They have poor dramatic appeal?Their dramatic appeal was reduced? Are we talking about playing good baseball, appeal or attendance?

And:" They hear that because they are built around depth, creativity and flexibility and the need to trade a Matt Garza or James Shields after four service years, that they therefore are not built for the post-season, but Longoria, James Loney and other players don’t buy its entirety.

They hear that because they (Are these the same "they"?) are built around the need to trade a Matt Garza or James Shields... but Longoria, James Loney and other players don't buy its entirety." Whose entirety? What is "entirety"? How is a team built around creativity?